https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
--- Comment #6 from CVS Commits ---
The master branch has been updated by Marek Polacek :
https://gcc.gnu.org/g:f8f5388c9e94d4324c31d82b335fa138518e3171
commit r11-6967-gf8f5388c9e94d4324c31d82b335fa138518e3171
Author: Marek Polacek
Date: Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
--- Comment #5 from Marek Polacek ---
A more realistic test:
void
fn ()
{
X.operator T();
}
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
--- Comment #4 from Haoxin Tu ---
Add two cases. I guess the reason is the same.
//case1
static_assert (->operator a, "")
//case2
alignas (->operator a)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
--- Comment #3 from Haoxin Tu ---
(In reply to Marek Polacek from comment #2)
> I would treat them just like ICEs. They are useful if the testcase isn't
> complete garbage. This one is sort of useful because it shows that my
> change above has
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
Marek Polacek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2020-07-09
Status|UNCONFIRME
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96137
--- Comment #1 from Haoxin Tu ---
Also, I want to know are those cases (invalid code but makes GCC hang on) worth
reporting? If those cases can help improve the GCC FE or its performance, I
will continue to file more reports. Otherwise, I will ju
